A
SY
THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS
HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES
2012
S
In Search of Solidarity
SI
Refugees
HE
World’s
NT
The state of the
Overview
This is a synthesis of one of UNHCR’s flagship publications, The State of the World’s Refugees: In Search of Solidarity.
The book itself was produced during 2011-2012, and written from the perspective of UNHCR, drawing on experiences from
the past seven years. It is divided into eight thematic chapters, which together reflect the state of the world’s refugees.
Growing numbers
without state protection
International protection
under pressure
UNHCR’s innovative
practices
First, the book describes growing numbers of people who lack the full protection
of their state. At the start of 2011 tens of
millions of people—including 33.9 million
of concern to UNHCR—are therefore
particularly vulnerable. Most are people
at risk from armed conflicts and political violence in their communities and
countries of origin: civilians in conflict,
refugees, asylum-seekers, refugees in
protracted displacement and internally
displaced people (IDPs). In recent years,
IDPs have emerged as the largest group
of people receiving UNHCR’s protection
and assistance—as many as 14.7 million in
27 countries at the start of 2011, though
the total number of IDPs from conflict
could be as high as 27.5 million. UNHCR
is also concerned with 10.5 million refugees, mainly from conflicts.
Second, the book describes an international refugee protection system under
considerable pressure from the growing
numbers and categories of people in need
of protection. The international refugee
protection system, founded in 1951 on
the principles of national responsibility
and international solidarity, is required
to provide protection and assistance to
populations of concern, but also to address the evolving patterns of forced displacement. In particular, UNHCR and its
humanitarian partners are under increasing pressure to meet protection needs in
the world’s conflict zones, despite growing threats to the security of aid workers
and constraints to accessing populations
in need.
Third, the book highlights new practices
and approaches developed by UNHCR
and partners, working with states, to respond to the world’s evolving forced displacement challenges:
Additional populations of concern to
UNHCR may be less affected by conflict,
but live in similarly vulnerable situations
without the full protection of their states.
They include stateless people, refugees
and displaced people in urban areas, and
people displaced by natural disasters and
environmental factors. As many as 12
million people may be stateless. Increasing numbers of refugees, IDPs and returnees live in urban areas compared to
camps. The number of people displaced
by natural disasters has multiplied in
recent years, exceeding the number displaced by conflict. Climate change could
increase this number by many millions
in decades ahead.
Global social and economic trends indicate that displacement will continue to
grow in the next decade, exacerbated by
population growth, urbanization, natural disasters, climate change, rising food
prices and conflict over scarce resources.
Pressure on the international protection system is compounded by threats
to the institution of asylum and the declining availability of traditional solutions to refugee problems. People who
seek asylum in another country face a
widely varying protection environment,
characterized by countries with divergent approaches, inconsistent practices,
barriers to mixed migration and restrictions on rights. People who are displaced
across borders owing to natural disasters
and the effect of climate change face a
potential legal protection gap, since they
are not covered by the 1951 UN Refugee
Convention. At the same time, refugees
are increasingly unlikely to find the traditional solutions to their problems, and
some 7.2 million people are trapped in
‘protracted’ exile. The host countries,
countries of origin and donor countries
seem less able to work together to find
solutions, with host countries resisting
local integration and other countries offering too few resettlement places.
• To meet the needs of civilians in armed
conflicts, UNHCR and its UN partners
have shifted their approach from risk
avoidance to ‘risk management’. This approach is focused on ‘how to stay’ instead
of ‘when to leave’, and on promoting ‘acceptance’ among local communities.
• To protect refugees within mixed mi-
gration movements, UNHCR and partners in 2006 developed a Ten-Point Plan
on Refugee Protection and Mixed Migration. It is aimed at encouraging states to
incorporate refugee protection into broader migration policies and to ensure that
all migrants are treated with dignity.
• To defend the institution of asylum
and hold states accountable for respecting
their obligations under the 1951 Convention, UNHCR has increasingly made submissions to national and regional courts
in pursuit of more consistency in the application of asylum decisions.
• To resolve protracted refugee situations,
UNHCR has tried to adopt comprehensive
strategies that involve all three traditional
durable solutions—voluntary repatriation,
local integration and resettlement.
• To integrate refugees, returnees and
IDPs into broader reconstruction and development planning in cases of voluntary repatriation and local integration,
UNHCR and the UN Development Programme (UNDP) with the World Bank,
in 2010 launched the Transitional Solutions Initiative.
Contents
The imperative
of solidarity
• To involve refugees’ own priorities in
finding solutions to their problems, UNHCR has stated that ‘mobility’ can play
an important role in achieving durable
solutions for refugees, and has begun to
explore the potential for migration channels to contribute to durable solutions.
• To address statelessness, UNHCR has
encouraged states to sign the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and bring their nationality legislation into line with Convention standards.
• To respond to the needs of refugees in
urban areas, UNHCR in 2009 adopted
a new Policy on Refugee Protection and
Solutions in Urban Areas, and has begun recalibrating its operations towards
urban areas and collecting evidence of
good practices.
• To improve the availability and qual-
ity of protection, UNHCR in 2011 organized a Ministerial Meeting aimed at
strengthening both national responsibility and international solidarity with
respect to refugees and stateless people.
More than 100 states made concrete
pledges on a wide range of refugee protection and statelessness issues.
Fourth, the book argues consistently
that strengthened international solidarity is needed to address the world’s forced
displacement challenges. Both state responsibility and international solidarity
are essential to making the international
protection regime function effectively,
to addressing the world’s growing displacement problems, and to resolving
tensions over the governance of international protection. Global solidarity, the
principle by which global challenges are
managed in a way that distributes costs
and burdens fairly, is crucial when a few
states host the majority of the world’s
refugees due largely to their geographic
proximity to conflict-affected states.
Solidarity is required from the main
stakeholders in the international protection system. Above all, solidarity is
required from states—including countries of origin and host countries—who
must act responsibly to protect the
rights of all people on their territories,
and to fulfil their obligations to refugees,
displaced people and stateless people.
Solidarity is also required from the international community to support host
states to shoulder their responsibilities
effectively, through financial support,
technical support, resettlement places,
engagement in governance, and other
contributions. Solidarity is also required
from civil society organizations, communities and concerned individuals who
shape the protection environment, and
often make the most meaningful contributions to improving the state of the
world’s refugees. n
4
6
9
12
14
18
22
26
29
INTRODUCTION
Trends in Forced Displacement
CHAPTER 1
Conflict, Displacement and
‘Humanitarian Space’
CHAPTER 2
Keeping Asylum Meaningful
CHAPTER 3
Unblocking Durable Solutions
CHAPTER 4
Resolving Statelessness
CHAPTER 5
Protecting the Internally
Displaced
CHAPTER 6
Displacement and Urbanization
CHAPTER 7
Displacement, Climate Change
and Natural Disasters
CHAPTER 8
State Responsibility and
International Solidarity
U N H CR SU M M A RY | 20 1 2 | T H E STAT E O F T H E WO RL D REF U GEES
3
Introduction
Trends in Forced Displacement
This synthesis of The State of the World’s Refugees: In Search for Solidarity, is intended for UNHCR’s diverse
stakeholders, and all people concerned with forced displacement.
The book is available at: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199654758.do
4
THE STAT E OF T HE WOR L D R E FU G E E S | 2 0 1 2 | UNHC R S UM M A RY
Trends in Forced Displacement | INTRODUCTION
he world’s refugee protection system was established with the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees, or UNHCR,
in 1950 and the adoption of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the 1951 Refugee
Convention). The system was designed to respond to the potentially
destabilizing effects of population
movements from the Second World
War and its aftermath, and to uphold
the rights of refugees and support
the countries hosting them. The
Convention has since been supplemented by the 1967 Protocol as well
as protection regimes in several regions of the world.
T
and Asia; by urbanization, including the increased ruralto-urban migration of young people leaving rural poverty
and food insecurity, and adding pressures on housing and
employment in cities; by climate change and natural disasters, which already displace millions of people every
year; by increased food prices linked to
urbanization and reduced agricultural
output in Africa and Asia; and by increasing conflict over scarce resources
which could depopulate some areas.
Global social
and economic
trends indicate
that displacement
will continue
to grow in the
next decade.
“
UNHCR is mandated to lead
and coordinate international action
to protect refugees and resolve refugee problems worldwide. UNHCR’s mandate distinguishes it from other humanitarian actors, requiring it to provide international
protection to refugees who do not enjoy the protection of
their governments. It also recognizes that international
cooperation and support are needed to complement the
efforts of the host country, which bears the primary responsibility for meeting the needs of refugees. In times
of economic difficulty and heightened security concerns,
states understandably tend to focus on the well-being of
their own populations; but the global challenges of forced
displacement call for more, not less, international cooperation and solidarity.
U N H C R / P. TAG G A R T
Current trends in forced displacement are testing
the international system like never before. Some 33.9
million people were ‘people of concern’ to UNHCR at the
start of 2011, an increase from 19.2 million in 2005. Many
were not refugees, as the proportion of refugees among
the people of concern to UNHCR decreased from 48 per
cent to 29 per cent over the past six years. UNHCR has
increasingly engaged with internally displaced people
(IDPs), stateless people, populations
ƒ Thousands flee the area
affected by major natural disasters
of Kibati, North Kivu, in
and people displaced in urban arthe Democratic Republic
eas. UNHCR has responded to new
of the Congo.
emergencies in places such as Libya
and Côte d’Ivoire, while addressing long-standing displacement in and from countries such as Afghanistan,
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Somalia and
Sudan. Recognizing the diversity of displaced populations and their needs, UNHCR has taken steps to ensure
that its programmes are tailored to meet different needs,
and UNHCR’s Age, Gender and Diversity policy sets out
its commitment to ensuring equitable outcomes.
Global social and economic trends indicate that displacement will continue to grow in the next decade, taking on new and different forms. Displacement patterns
will be affected by population growth, from today’s 7 billion people to 10.1 billion by 2100, and mostly in Africa
Developments in the international system have also affected the
international response to refugees
and displaced people. Humanitarian
reforms initiated by the United Nations in 2005 have made international
humanitarian action more efficient,
accountable and predictable. The UN
Security Council’s endorsement of the Responsibility to
Protect doctrine, and a new emphasis on the protection
of civilians in peacekeeping operations, have contributed
to protecting basic human rights in situations of armed
conflict. The International Criminal Court, and mechanisms at national and regional levels, have contributed
to reinforcing accountability for armed actors. The need
to ensure the protection of IDPs is now widely accepted,
and a broad definition of protection has been affirmed by
the UN-led Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC).
Further, UNHCR and other humanitarian actors have
increasingly recognized that their principal accountability is to the people they serve.
”
This sixth edition of The State of the World’s Refugees
provides an overview of key developments in forced displacement from 2006 to 2011, a time frame that coincides
with the first five-year term (mid-2005 to June 2010)
and the start of the second term of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres. Produced by
UNHCR with input from independent experts, the book
is intended to make a contribution to global policy and
practice relating to forced displacement.
Under the overarching theme of solidarity, the book
is divided into eight thematic chapters. Chapter 1 focuses
on armed conflict and humanitarian responses, the context for many UNHCR operations today. Chapter 2 looks
at trends in asylum and changes in the refugee protection
environment, 60 years after the 1951 Convention. Chapter 3 examines the search for durable solutions, and the
growing constraints to achieving them. Chapter 4 offers
a fresh review of statelessness, a long-standing problem.
Chapter 5 looks at UNHCR’s work with IDPs, and its
greatly expanded role in recent years. Chapter 6 examines displacement in urban environments and associated
protection challenges. Chapter 7 offers new perspectives
on displacement caused by climate change and natural
disasters. Chapter 8 describes the continuing quest for
national responsibility and international solidarity, to
ensure the protection of refugees and displaced people. n
U N H CR SU M M A RY | 20 1 2 | T H E STAT E O F T H E WO RL D REF U GEES
5
Chapter 1
Conflict, Displacement
and ‘Humanitarian Space’
This chapter examines the impact of conflict and insecurity on forced displacement and the humanitarian
response worldwide. In view of the tens of millions of people forcibly displaced by conflict today, the chapter
examines the changing nature of conflict, the challenges this poses for humanitarian action, and the ‘risk
management’ approach adopted by UNHCR and other humanitarian actors. It concludes with an outline
of expected future challenges in addressing forced displacement in conflicts.
I
However, UNHCR’s presence in conflict areas is relatively recent, beginning in the Balkans in 1991-1995 and
following in the former Zaire (Democratic Republic of
the Congo), Afghanistan, Colombia and Iraq during the
1990s and 2000s. This increased involvement coincided
with rising international humanitarian action in conflict
zones as well as donor financial support, media attention
and expectations of a swift humanitarian response.
Changing conflict
In the last quarter century, UNHCR has increasingly
operated in conflicts of a different nature. Today’s conflicts
frequently involve different ethnic or religious groups,
combining political, communitarian and criminal violence. Violence that appears indiscriminate may also be
deliberately targeted at certain groups of civilians, and may
include the use of sexual and gender-based violence. These
armed conflicts may be aimed at securing social or economic power, and usually affect areas in repeated cycles. When
UNHCR was established in 1950, armed conflict usually
meant wars between States and generally allowed limited
scope for humanitarian action until the conflict ended.
In today’s conflicts, the agents of violence have multiplied. Instead of uniformed forces and non-state actors
6
THE STAT E OF T HE WOR L D R E FU G E E S | 2 0 1 2 | UNHC R S UM M A RY
who exercise de facto control over territory and people,
today’s conflicts often involve a myriad of private actors
who may feel little sense of responsibility towards local
populations. Some include violent criminal organizations who seek to take control of land and territory for
economic purposes, or individuals associated with violent
international ideological movements that seek to exploit
local grievances. In today’s conflicts, the distinction is
blurred between combatant and civilian—a cornerstone
of international humanitarian law.
While wars today seem to kill fewer people than
past conflicts, greater numbers of civilians appear to be
exposed and vulnerable to violence, especially where the
state offers little protection for citizens. In these situations, citizens may further suffer the impacts of government dysfunction, loss of livelihoods, shortages of basic
necessities, as well as natural disasters and demographic
pressures—all of which conin the ruins of her house
tribute to their insecurity, dis- „ Ainwoman
Osh, Kyrgyzstan following a wave
placement and vulnerability.
of ethnic violence in June 2010.
Today’s conflicts often have
far-reaching impacts on civilians, and particularly on the
vulnerable: children, people living with disabilities and
older people. Many people are forced to flee their homes
to destinations that are insecure, to urban areas, to countries where access to asylum is restricted, and to distant
new destinations. Protracted conflicts also translate into
seemingly permanent displacement, often in dire conditions and in dependency on aid.
In many conflicts, conditions do not allow people
to receive international protection and humanitarian
assistance. Humanitarian space—the conditions that enable people in need to have access to protection and assistance, and for humanitarian actors to respond to their
needs—is shrinking. In these conflicts, UNHCR may not
be allowed to discharge its core mandate to provide international protection to refugees and to assist governments
in finding durable solutions for refugees. Conditions in
many crises today have presented major challenges to
UNHCR / S. SCHULMAN
n 2011, UNHCR worked in situations of armed conflict more than ever before in its 60-year history. A
majority of the 10.5 million refugees under its mandate fled from conflicts, more than half of them from
Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. Since the start of 2011,
UNHCR has responded to new outflows from Somalia,
Côte d’Ivoire, Libya, Mali and Sudan, and it continued to
respond to large numbers (two-thirds of all refugees) in
long-term exile from protracted conflicts that offered few
prospects of return. Further, UNHCR’s expanded role
with regard to IDPs since 2005 means its involvement in
almost all complex emergencies. Some 27.5 million people
were internally displaced by conflict in 2011, and many of
them needed protection.
Conflict, Displacement and ‘Humanitarian Space’ | CHAPTER 1
humanitarian action, especially where causes of displacement and serious human rights abuses go unaddressed,
as in Afghanistan, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Libya and Yemen. These challenges
tend to grow over time without a political solution to
the conflict.
UNHCR / S. SCHULMAN
Humanitarian challenges
Humanitarian action is predicated on respect for fundamental principles: humanity, impartiality, neutrality and
independence. UNHCR’s Statute states that the agency’s
work shall be of an entirely non-political, ‘humanitarian’
character. Humanitarian principles are also important
for organizations that operate in insecure environments,
since only those who respect them are entitled to protection under international law, and respecting them
is believed to foster acceptance by armed actors and
affected communities. However, an agency’s respect
for humanitarian principles is not sufficient to ensure
effective humanitarian action if parties to a conflict do
not respect human rights. In practice, agents of violence
have frequently flouted humanitarian principles, and
states have subordinated them to political and security
imperatives. Humanitarian organizations often face bad
and still worse options in dealing with armed actors who
can facilitate or obstruct humanitarian action according
to their perception of humanitarian action and its impact
on their objectives.
Despite efforts to be strictly non-political, aid may
become politicized when humanitarian action is closely
associated with political action. Multidimensional UN
peacekeeping or political missions are organized around
the principle of ‘integration’, and seek to align the objectives and actions of all UN agencies and forces present.
Humanitarian agencies have raised concerns about the
impact of integration missions on neutral, independent
humanitarian action; supporting a political transition
process demands a degree of partiality, notably where
UN peacekeeping forces take enforcement action. Where
there is tension between humanitarian and political
imperatives, many fear the latter will always prevail.
UNHCR believes integration can bring real benefits in
countries in the peacebuilding phase, but where conflict
continues humanitarian actors must not be perceived as
having political or security agendas.
The ‘stabilization’ approaches adopted by NATO
members and others in failed or conflict-affected states
raise similar concerns, as they combine foreign policy,
military and assistance activities to enhance human security and state security. They have sometimes misrepresented military and civilian assistance programmes as
‘humanitarian’. Such approaches can reduce ‘humanitarian space’, undermining efforts to promote acceptance
of humanitarian action, putting staff at risk and even
turning them into targets—as seen in Iraq, Afghanistan
and elsewhere.
U N H CR SU M M A RY | 20 1 2 | T H E STAT E O F T H E WO RL D REF U GEES
7
UNHCR / L. BOLDRINI
CHAPTER 1 | Conflict, Displacement and ‘Humanitarian Space’

Young migrants and
asylum seekers in a
crowded detention
centre on the Greek
island of Lesvos.
The changing nature of conflicts
has significantly affected humanitarian operations, threatening the security
of aid workers and restricting access to
potential beneficiaries. The number of attacks on aid
workers has increased dramatically, even though providing humanitarian aid in an environment of violence is
inherently risky. Some challenges are specific to refugee
operations, and UNHCR’s responsibilities sometimes
place it in direct opposition to the forces that target or
threaten refugees and other displaced people. Humanitarian action cannot remove the causes of displacement,
but strengthening legitimate institutions and governance
is considered crucial to breaking cycles of violence, and
international justice mechanisms can bring to account
the perpetrators of large-scale abuses against civilians.
Since needs may be greatest in situations where the risks
are also greatest, humanitarian organizations have often
continued operations, even in conditions where humanitarian principles are in jeopardy. Identifying when the
problems faced outweigh the benefits delivered is difficult, and humanitarian organizations remain reluctant
to make such a determination.
duce the likelihood or impact of threats to humanitarian
work. A first step is to encourage and support actions by
the authorities to uphold their responsibility for the safety
of humanitarian staff and, where risks remain, other
measures may be necessary as articulated in the UN’s
Minimum Operational Safety Standards (MOSS).
Risk management
Today’s conflicts pose many challenges for humanitarian
organizations, and humanitarian action is affected by
many factors over which the organizations have little control. In recent years, despite the many constraints, UNHCR and its partners have been able to continue operating in many complex and insecure environments. Forced
displacement trends suggest there will be a continuing
– and probably increasing – need to ‘stay and deliver’ in
such contexts, requiring innovation, discipline, principles
and realism. Still, the most effective humanitarian action
can only be palliative; addressing root causes of forced displacement requires other actions. In the absence of such
actions, there is a need for greater international solidarity
with refugees, IDPs, their host states and communities. n
Insecurity is perceived as the greatest direct challenge facing UNHCR and other humanitarian organizations today,
so considerable attention has been devoted to finding ways
to operate safely in high-risk environments. Within the
UN, there has been a shift in approach from risk avoidance
focused in ‘when to leave’ to risk management focused
on ‘how to stay,’ as outlined in the 2011 study, To Stay and
Deliver. A risk management approach requires careful appreciation of threats in an operating environment; analysis
to determine the likelihood of dangerous events and their
possible impacts; weighing of risks against the importance
of the humanitarian action; and adopting measures to re8
THE STAT E OF T HE WOR L D R E FFU
U G E E S | 2 0 1 2 | UNHC R S UM M A RY
UNHCR has considered it vital to promote acceptance, by ensuring that all concerned, particularly local communities, understand and accept the aim of its
work and its non-political character. UNHCR has also
sought to empower its national staff and build effective
local partnerships—while ensuring that risk is not simply
transferred to them – and to develop new mechanisms
for monitoring programme delivery. In some environments, UNHCR may need to cooperate with host government troops, UN forces or other foreign military
forces as the only means to continue its humanitarian
action. However, UNHCR’s ability to operate effectively
still depends greatly on the training of its in-country staff
in security risk management policy and practices.
Looking ahead
Chapter 2
Keeping Asylum Meaningful
This chapter describes the increasingly complex challenge of preserving refugee protection and the integrity
of asylum. It begins by describing the international legal framework for refugee protection, then describes
the inconsistencies that beset its practice, and its entwinement with other forms of migration and the need to
strengthen the ‘governance’ of the international refugee protection system. It concludes with a list of steps to keep
asylum meaningful.
people today flee conflict situations in countries such
as Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, certain developing
countries are confronted with the largest mass influxes.
These countries tend to grant refugees admission and
protection on a prima facie or group basis, thereby offering protection from refoulement [forced return]. In many
cases, they also strictly limit the rights of refugees, and
confine them to camps. In contrast, wealthier countries,
geographically removed from crisis zones, have implemented numerous measures to deter and prevent the
arrival of asylum-seekers and refugees. Previously, only
countries in Europe and North America operated individual refugee status determination procedures. In 2010,
The institution of asylum is threatened today
a total 167 countries and territories received 850,000
by divergent approaches, and signs that two parallel
individual asylum applications, ten countries received
systems may be operating: an asylum regime in the
more than half of them and South Afglobal North, and a refugee regime in
rica alone received 180,600 applications.
the global South. Since most displaced ‚ Afghan girls attend classes at their
he world’s refugee protection regime was designed to offer international protection to refugees who cannot rely on the protection of their
own state. The term ‘asylum’ is not defined in international law, but it has come to refer to a status that guarantees refugees the enjoyment of their full human rights in
a host country. For more than six decades, UNHCR has
been responsible for ensuring international protection for
refugees in cooperation with states, and faces an increasingly complex protection environment in which to take
this responsibility forward.
T
UNHCR / S. PHELPS
school in a refugee camp in Islamabad.
U N H CR SU M M A RY | 20 1 2 | T H E STAT E O F T H E WO RL D REF U GEES
9
CHAPTER 2 | Keeping Asylum Meaningful
The protection framework
The 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol
remain the cornerstones of the international refugee
protection system. The 1951 Convention is conceived as
a universal human rights instrument to protect refugees
from persecution, prevent their refoulement and guarantee their wider rights. Today, UN members continue
to recognize the value and relevance of the Convention
and its Protocol, even though they do not apply them
consistently, some are not signatories and others have not
translated its provisions into national law. Since 1951, the
refugee protection regime has been further strengthened
by the adoption of regional instruments in Africa, Latin
America and the European Union, and by other developments in international human rights, humanitarian and
criminal law.
The refugee protection system is weakened by its
less than universal application. By 2011, a total of 148
countries had ratified the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967
Protocol; however, more than 40 per cent of refugees
under UNHCR’s mandate were hosted by states that had
not acceded to the instruments. When states do not accede to the Refugee Convention, or fail to live up to their
obligations under it or enter reservations to the text, the
potential for a system of mutual understanding and collaboration is weakened.
Inconsistent practices
The practice of asylum is fraught with inconsistencies
that also undermine the integrity of the international
refugee protection system. States determine protection needs in divergent ways, with many important
host countries in the developing world using prima
facie procedures and countries in the developed world
using individual procedures. Between 2001 and 2010,
some 2.1 million people were found, through individual
determinations, to be refugees under the terms of the
1951 Convention or entitled to a complementary form
of protection, and in most cases this brought access to
rights that enabled them to integrate in their countries of
asylum. During the same period, 2.7 million people were
considered as refugees on a prima facie or group basis,
mainly in countries neighbouring their own, frequently
with limited access to rights.
UNHCR itself conducts more than one in ten of
the world’s individual refugee status determinations.
By 2010, 100 countries had established national refugee
status determination procedures, but in 46 countries,
UNHCR continued to determine refugee status under
its mandate. In that year, UNHCR registered 89,000 new
asylum claims and issued 61,000 substantive decisions—11
per cent of all individual asylum decisions worldwide.
States show further inconsistency in the way they
grant protection to people fleeing from violence and
conflict, with states in Africa and Latin America granting protection on this basis alone and states in Europe
10
THE STAT E OF T HE WOR L D R E FFU
U G E E S | 2 0 1 2 | UNHC R S UM M A RY
and elsewhere requiring a specific link made to grounds
outlined in the 1951 Convention. In addition, states are
inconsistent in the way they understand persecution on
the grounds of ‘membership of a particular social group,
with some linking it to objective characteristics and others to social perceptions. A UNHCR study in 2011 found
significant variation in the outcomes of asylum applications from situations of violence lodged in six European
Union countries.
Further, both signatory and non-signatory states offer
very different types of protection to asylum-seekers, ranging from full entitlements and enjoyment of social and
economic rights, to strict limitations upon these rights, including long-term encampment, and detention intended
as a deterrent. Many signatory states scrupulously respect
the requirements of the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol; others maintain legal reservations to key entitlements
foreseen by these instruments; and still others have not
translated the Convention provisions into national law.
Violations of the Convention range from denial or failure
to uphold refugees’ socio-economic rights to egregious
acts of refoulement.
Mixed migration
Mixed population flows, along with pressure on states to
control their borders, have increasingly complicated access to asylum. A dramatic global increase in human mobility has coincided with increased irregular migration,
complex migratory flows, security concerns and people
crossing borders without prior authorization in a variety
of circumstances and for a variety of reasons. States have
struggled to manage immigration and respect international refugee law and human rights law, with some resorting to an array of border control mechanisms—border
closures, push-backs, interception at sea, visa requirements, carrier sanctions and offshore border controls. All
of these may impede access to refugee protection.
In response, UNHCR and partners have sought new
ways to ensure refugee protection. In 2006, UNHCR developed a Ten Point Plan on Refugee Protection and Mixed
Migration aimed at encouraging states to incorporate refugee protection into broader migration policies and to ensure that all migrants are treated with dignity. Between
2008 and 2011, UNHCR led a process of regional consultations to raise awareness of the protection-related aspects
of mixed migratory flows, and to improve protection responses through better cooperation among key actors and
the development of comprehensive regional strategies.
UNHCR has highlighted that victims of human
trafficking are one group of migrants whose protection
needs may not be sufficiently appreciated in the context
of mixed migration. States need to assess whether the
harm an individual fears as a result of having been trafficked may amount to persecution. In some cases, their
treatment may be so atrocious as to amount to persecution in its own right.
UNHCR/S. SCHULMAN
Keeping Asylum Meaningful | CHAPTER 2
UNHCR has recognized that security concerns following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the
United States, and subsequent strikes in other cities,
made states increasingly worried about importing a terrorist under the guise of a refugee or an asylum-seeker. In
2010, UNHCR established a new unit dedicated to issues
of protection and national security. Yet asylum channels
are among the most closely regulated of entry channels,
and the drafters of the 1951 Convention built in provisions
that effectively address states’ security concerns.
Strengthening ‘governance’
Preserving the integrity of asylum requires strengthening the international ‘governance’ of asylum at both
institutional and political levels. UNHCR’s Executive
Committee (ExCom), comprised 85 states in 2011, has
long been the leading body for asylum’s governance and,
since 1975, has adopted annual Conclusions that served
to maintain a global consensus on the international
protection regime. In recent years, however, ExCom has
struggled to secure a consensus, and discussion of asylum
has begun to shift to groupings at regional levels. Since
2007, the High Commissioner’s annual Dialogue on Protection Challenges has become the principal forum for
global discussions on refugee protection, supported by its
follow-up activities.
UNHCR, which remains responsible for supervision
of the application of the 1951 Convention, struggles to
hold states accountable for respecting their obligations.
The Convention lacks a supervisory mechanism akin
to those for other UN human rights instruments. UNHCR has increasingly made submissions to national or
refugees from Côte
regional courts in search of more  Young
d’Ivoire have arrived in
consistency in the application of
Liberia after the disputed
election at the end of 2010.
asylum decisions.
Asylum is primarily the responsibility of states, but
politicians, community leaders and the media can contribute to a climate of tolerance in which asylum can be
properly managed. In many countries, asylum and immigration debates are intertwined and politicians have
staked out anti-immigration positions. Negative attitudes
are easily fuelled by concerns about the costs of maintaining asylum systems and hosting refugees. A climate conducive to asylum requires explaining the asylum issue as
distinct from immigration in general; focusing on education about forced displacement, including through the
media; and acting to combat xenophobia and intolerance.
Realizing aspirations
The 1951 Refugee Convention is intended to confer
a right to international protection on people who are
vulnerable because they lack national protection, and to
assure refugees the widest possible enjoyment of their
rights. But translating this aspiration into reality remains a challenge. To keep asylum meaningful there is a
need to ensure that all refugees are able to exercise their
rights; that refugee protection does not depend on where
an individual seeks asylum; that individual and group
determination systems are made coherent, particularly
in relation to conflicts; that governance structures for
asylum are further developed to resolve tensions between
states; and that UNHCR continues to serve as both a
partner and a watchdog for individual states and the international community on matters of asylum. n
U N H CR SU M M A RY | 20 1 2 | T H E STAT E O F T H E WO RL D REF U GEES
11
Chapter 3
Unblocking Durable Solutions
This chapter explores how the established framework of three durable solutions might be adjusted to respond
better to the needs of today’s refugees. It begins by outlining the three traditional durable solutions, goes on to
describe the importance of comprehensive strategies, which include development and peacebuilding, and then
considers how refugees themselves approach durable solutions. It concludes by suggesting policy directions to
revitalize the search for solutions.
he ultimate aim of refugee protection is to secure
lasting solutions to refugee problems. Lasting solutions may be achieved by returning to a home
country (voluntary repatriation), by settling permanently
in the country where the refugee has found protection
(local integration) or by relocating to a third country
which offers the refugee permanent residence (resettlement). A durable solution, by definition, removes the
objective need for refugee status by allowing the refugee
to acquire or reacquire the full protection of a state.
T
For many refugees, none of these solutions is available. By 2011, the number of refugees under UNHCR’s
responsibility who remained trapped in protracted exile
reached 7.2 million. International efforts to achieve solutions faced an impasse whereby countries of origin, host
countries and donor nations were unable or unwilling to
work together. These efforts were further complicated by
a new emphasis from donors on finding solutions close
to countries of origin, by increasingly complex refugee
problems that defied easy solutions and by an increased
interest in solutions for IDPs. For more than 60 years,
UNHCR has worked to help governments find lasting
solutions to refugee problems. In 2008, the High Commissioner launched an Initiative on Protracted Refugee
Situations and used his annual Protection Dialogue to
draw attention to the topic.
Established approaches
Voluntary repatriation
While the 1990s are dubbed the decade of repatriation,
the overall numbers of refugees repatriating voluntarily
declined sharply in the first decade of the 21st Century
and reached a 20-year low in 2010. For many refugee
populations, repatriation is not possible because of continuing conflict in their country of origin, localized violence persists, infrastructure and markets are damaged
or destroyed, and livelihoods and access to basic services
are limited. When conflict has involved inter-communal
violence, it is often difficult to establish mechanisms for
transitional justice and restore viable community relations, especially when disputes over land rights or repa12
THE STAT E OF T HE WOR L D R E F U G E E S | 2 0 1 2 | UNHC R S UM M A RY
rations continue. UNHCR’s experiences in Afghanistan
and South Sudan illustrate the difficulties of trying to
solve refugee problems when political and governance
crises endure. To be sustainable, voluntary repatriations
require long-term engagement by many actors besides
UNHCR in reintegration, reconciliation and reconstruction. Moreover, return patterns in Afghanistan, South
Sudan and Bosnia and Herzegovina provide evidence of
the extent to which refugees and IDPs continue to move
after return. Many refugees return to urban areas or to
new communities, or leave the country again.
Local integration
Although states agreed to ‘work proactively’ on local
integration in 2005, many host countries have continued
to resist local integration for refugees, while donor countries have consistently encouraged such solutions. Host
states are frequently reluctant to consider large-scale
local settlement of refugee populations, and therefore
implement encampment policies. In some contexts, host
government officials may attach political or economic
value to the continued presence of refugees and implicitly discourage them from taking up solutions, even
where these are available. Yet refugees often make important contributions to local communities, especially when
given the opportunity to integrate; integration invariably
occurs to some degree when refugees remain in their
country of asylum for years on end, or when they are
born there; and in some cases, refugees have been able
to acquire the citizenship of their asylum country on an
individual or even a group basis.
Resettlement
Resettlement serves as a vital protection tool for individual refugees in danger, but the number of resettlement
places made available cannot make a significant contribution to durable solutions overall. In 2011, UNHCR
estimated that 805,000 refugees were in need of thirdcountry resettlement, yet only about 10 per cent of those
places were available. In 2010, some 94 per cent of all
resettled refugees went to just four countries: Australia,
Canada, Sweden and the United States, which resettles
more refugees than any other country. UNHCR has
Unblocking Durable Solutions | CHAPTER 3
advocated for more countries to implement resettlement
programmes, and their number has grown from 15 in
2005 to 24 in 2012. But the number of resettlement places
remains limited. UNHCR and partners have therefore
sought to use resettlement in a more strategic manner,
maximizing the benefits of resettlement to other parties.
fore approach solutions that maintain flexibility, maximize security and bring economic gains for their whole
family. The disjuncture between refugee approaches
and international approaches to solutions can also lead
refugees to resolutely await their preferred solution, or
to circumvent official criteria.
Comprehensive strategies
When refugees are actively involved in the search
for solutions, they often attach highest priority to mobility. Pre-conflict patterns of migration continue through
conflicts and contribute to meeting post-conflict needs
and offering solutions. Remittances from family members abroad may be twice as efficient as aid in reaching intended recipients in some instances. Refugees and
IDPs increasingly resort to ‘dormitory’ or ‘commuter’
displacement, living outside their community of origin
but making regular visits home. Notwithstanding the
global policy trend over the past decade towards restrictions on migration, refugees and returnees have often
resorted to irregular migration in search of solutions.
The durable solutions framework does not currently take
account of refugee mobility, and international actors have
approached solutions for refugees with a sedentary bias.
On a number of occasions, UNHCR has tried to resolve
protracted refugee situations by pursuing comprehensive strategies that involve all three durable solutions.
For both local integration and voluntary repatriation,
there is a widely accepted need to connect refugee solutions to broader peacebuilding and development efforts.
Peacebuilding is a multidimensional process focused
on restoring the rule of law and governance systems as
well as the economy, infrastructure and public services
of states emerging from conflict and at risk of lapsing
back into war. Security and stability are preconditions for
durable solutions. Local integration and voluntary repatriation also require the full engagement of development
actors, so the establishment in 2010 by the World Bank of
The international community generally seeks
solutions for an individual or a group,
but refugees often make decisions at the family level.
“
a ‘Global Programme on Forced Displacement,’ and the
launch in 2010 of the Transitional Solutions Initiative
(TSI) by UNHCR and the UN Development Programme
(UNDP) with the World Bank, were important steps. The
TSI is aimed at integrating the needs of the refugees, returnees and IDPs into broader reconstruction and development planning, with UNHCR supporting education
and training to enable refugees and returnees to become
self-reliant and to contribute to their communities.
Both the 1951 Convention and the 1969 Organization
of African Union (OAU) Refugee Convention allow for
the cessation of refugee status when durable changes
have taken place in the country of origin and the original causes of refugee flight no longer exist. Cessation of
refugee status can also play a role in achieving durable
solutions, serving as a catalyst to action.
Refugee perspectives
A persistent critique of efforts to find solutions for
refugees is that the refugees themselves are insufficiently
involved. The international community generally seeks
solutions for an individual or a group, but refugees often
make decisions at the family level. Refugees may there-
”
UNHCR has stated that mobility can play an important
role in achieving durable solutions for refugees, and has
begun to explore the potential for migration channels to
enhance refugee protection and access to solutions.
The way forward
Political will from states is needed to remove obstacles to
durable solutions. Since 2006, solutions have been found
for more than three million people in protracted situations, including South Sudanese, Burundians and refugees originating from Bhutan. However, many protracted
refugee situations have not been resolved and UNHCR
has made resolving protracted displacement an institutional priority. In particular, achieving solutions requires
states to respect the institution of asylum and refrain
from premature and involuntary returns; to recognize
the reality of local integration in some long-term displacement situations; to place refugee solutions squarely
on the development agenda; to increase commitments
to providing resettlement and making places available;
to incorporate refugee mobility into the solutions framework; and to much more actively engage refugees in the
search for solutions. This calls for international solidarity,
cooperation and responsibility sharing. n
U N H CR SU M M A RY | 20 1 2 | T H E STAT E O F T H E WO RL D REF U GEES
13
Chapter 4
Resolving Statelessness
This chapter examines global developments in addressing the problem of statelessness. It begins by describing
the international legal framework relating to statelessness, goes on to describe the various causes of statelessness,
and then outlines various efforts to resolve the problem. It concludes that statelessness can often be effectively
resolved, and notes renewed international commitments to address the problem.
veryone has the right to a nationality, as affirmed
in Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Possession of nationality often serves
as a key to enjoying many other rights, such as education, health care, employment and equality before the
law. Two global instruments provide guidance on the
rights of stateless people and on how statelessness can
be avoided: the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of
Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
E
However, stateless people can be found on every
continent and in virtually every country. The stateless
experience their lack of citizenship as an ever-present
concern, and they are among the most vulnerable people in the world. In the early 1990s, the break-up of the
Soviet Union, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia, and the emergence of new
independent states, led to a dramatic increase in statelessness and underscored the need for a more effective
international response.
UNHCR participated in the drafting of both the 1954
Convention and the 1961 Convention. In 1974, UNHCR
was designated by the UN General Assembly as the body
to which stateless people may turn, under the terms of
the 1961 Convention, for assistance in presenting their
claims to state authorities. More recently, in 2011, UNHCR acted to reinvigorate efforts to resolve situations of
statelessness, devoting particular attention to promoting
accession to the statelessness conventions. Since then, the
number of states parties to the 1954 and 1961 Conventions
rose from 65 and 37 respectively in 2010 to 71 and 42 in
2011. Governments increasingly recognize that their own
interests are not served by having large numbers of stateless people on their territories.
The international framework
While international law has traditionally recognized
broad discretionary power for states to define eligibility
for nationality, the 1954 and 1961 Conventions together
constitute the core of the international legal framework
relating to statelessness. The 1954 Convention elaborates
a protection regime for stateless people, which closely
14
THE STAT E OF T HE WOR L D R E FU G E E S | 2 0 1 2 | UNHC R S UM M A RY
resembles the 1951 Refugee Convention. It establishes an
internationally recognized status for stateless persons,
according them specific rights, such as access to courts,
to identity and travel documents, to employment, to
education and to freedom of movement; it sets out a definition of a stateless person, as someone ‘who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of
its law’; and it is seen as part of customary international
Resolving Statelessness | CHAPTER 4
Causes of statelessness
law. The 1961 Convention creates a framework for avoiding future statelessness, placing an obligation on states
to prevent statelessness arising from their nationality
laws and practices. Despite low numbers of accessions
to this treaty, some of its safeguards—such as granting
nationality to foundlings and preventing statelessness
when people change their nationality—are applied in
non-signatory states.
Statelessness has numerous causes which may often appear to be of a legal or technical nature. However, they
often involve discrimination on the basis of gender, race,
ethnicity, religion, language, disability or other grounds.
Transfer of sovereignty
People may become stateless when a state ceases to exist
and their citizenship is not transferred to the successor
state. Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, the
former Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia in the 1990s,
millions of people became stateless; migrants and marginalized ethnic and social groups were particularly affected. Most of these cases have now been resolved, but
more than 600,000 people were believed to be stateless
throughout the region, most of them in countries of the
former Soviet Union. Statelessness arising from state succession has also persisted in Africa, Asia and the Middle
East. Most recently, the creation of South Sudan in 2011
illustrated the risk of large-scale statelessness occurring
amid the complexities of state succession.
Many international human rights instruments also
contain principles that limit states’ discretion over nationality matters. The 1954 and 1961 Conventions are
also complemented by standards in regional instruments
that recognize the right to nationality, and establish additional obligations for states to prevent statelessness.
The most detailed standards relating to nationality have
been adopted in Europe, in the 2006 Convention on the
Avoidance of Statelessness in Relation to State Succession. Regional human rights bodies in the Americas,
Europe and Africa have recently also become more active
in highlighting and resolving the plight of stateless people. Despite this universal legal framework, statelessness
persists almost everywhere.
Conflict of nationality laws
Individuals may become stateless due to conflicts in the
application of nationality laws by different states. States
commonly apply two distinct principles for granting
citizenship at the time of birth: jus soli, or the law of the
soil, and jus sanguinis, the law of blood. Many children
become stateless when they are born in a country that applies only the jus sanguinis principle to parents who come
from a country that places limitations on the jus sanguinis
transmission of nationality in the case of children born
abroad. The likelihood of children becoming stateless
also increases when one parent is stateless.
UNHCR / G.M.B. AKASH
Administrative obstacles
People may also become stateless as a result of administrative and practical problems, especially when they are
from a particular group that faces official discrimination
or onerous bureaucratic procedures. Individuals might
be entitled to citizenship but
ƒ This baby and her parents
unable to undertake the necwere among the many Biharis in
essary procedural steps; they
Bangladesh whose citizenship
was confirmed by a 2008
may be required to pay excesdecision of the High Court.
sive fees for civil documentation or required to meet
unrealistic deadlines to complete procedures such as
registration; or, in disruptive conflict or post-conflict situations, they may find simple administrative procedures
difficult to complete.
Ethnic discrimination
People may also become stateless due to discrimination
on racial or ethnic grounds. Ethnic minorities may be
arbitrarily excluded from citizenship and sometimes this
discrimination is enshrined in law. Minorities brought
to a country during the colonial period to perform specific types of work have been excluded from citizenship
when independent states were formed, such as the formerly stateless Hill Tamils in Sri Lanka and Nubians in
U N H CR SU M M A RY | 20 1 2 | T H E STAT E O F T H E WO RL D REF U GEES
15
CHAPTER 4 | Resolving Statelessness
Kenya. Indigenous groups have also been left stateless in
some situations, including some hill tribes in Thailand.
Nomads whose way of life leads them to move across
borders may be labelled foreigners, and not recognized as
citizens in any country. Ethnic, racial,
religious or linguistic minorities have
sometimes been rendered stateless as
a result of an arbitrary decision that
deprives them of their nationality.
Minorities may also face considerable
obstacles in obtaining birth certificates or other documents necessary to
acquire or confirm citizenship.
conferring nationality on their children. A preliminary
analysis by UNHCR found that more than 40 countries
still discriminated against women with respect to these
elements, but there is also a growing trend towards
states remedying gender inequality
in their citizenship laws, notably in
the Middle East and North Africa.
Accurate
identification of
who is stateless
[...] is crucial to
ensuring that
stateless people
can exercise
their rights until
they acquire
a nationality.
“
As awareness grows, more is being
done to address statelessness around
the globe. The principal methods
for responding to situations of
statelessness include identification,
prevention and reduction of statelessness as well as the protection of
stateless persons.
Identifying statelessness
While very few countries have established procedures to determine statelessness, accurate identification of
who is stateless – and formal recognition of this – is crucial to ensuring that stateless people
can exercise their rights until they acquire a nationality.
Baseline data on stateless populations is improving and
UNHCR has data on statelessness in 65 countries compared to 30 in 2004. From 2009 to 2011, UNHCR carried
out identification activities in 42 countries. By 2010,
UNHCR had data that 3.5 million people were stateless
”
UNHCR / J. RAE
Gender discrimination
People may become stateless when
citizenship laws do not treat women
and men equally. Prior to the adoption of modern human rights instruments, the ‘principle of unity
of nationality of the family’ meant
women often automatically lost their
nationality upon marriage to a foreigner, and nationality could only be
conferred to children by the father. Progress in the elimination of gender discrimination in nationality laws has
come from developments in international human rights
law, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). This guarantees women’s equality with men in respect of acquisition, change or retention of their nationality as well as in
Resolving statelessness
16
THE STAT E OF T HE WOR L D R E FFU
U G E E S | 2 0 1 2 | UNHC R S UM M A RY
U N H C R / G . CO N STA N TI N E
Resolving Statelessness | CHAPTER 4
Crimean woman was deported
reducing statelessness, which sets out
worldwide. It found the problem to be  This
to Uzbekistan in 1944. In 1997 she
seven principles to guide action by the
more pressing in Southeast and Cenreturned to Ukraine and eventually
acquired citizenship there.
UN system to address statelessness and
tral Asia, the Middle East, Central and
makes clear that addressing statelessEastern Europe and in certain countries
ness is a ‘foundational and integral part’ of UN efforts
in Africa. Those with the largest number of stateless
to strengthen the rule of law. While UNHCR is the
people for which estimates are available are Estonia, Iraq,
agency mandated to work with governments on issues
Latvia, Myanmar, Nepal, Syria and Thailand. However,
of statelessness, it relies on cooperation and contributions
UNHCR believes there could be as many as 12 million
from other UN agencies, regional organizations and civil
stateless persons worldwide.
society. Through a series of regional events held between
2009 and 2011, UNHCR and partners have sought to
Law reform
raise awareness of the situation of stateless people among
Most national action on statelessness in recent years has
states, international and regional organizations and civil
been in the area of law reform. Both state and non-state
society actors, and to promote the exchange of good pracparties to the 1961 Convention have shown a clear trend
tices in addressing statelessness. These efforts have led
towards bringing their nationality legislation into line
to a number of concrete actions, including a government
with Convention standards—among them are Brazil,
campaign to register all undocumented people in TurkGeorgia, Iraq, Indonesia, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania,
menistan—many of whom are stateless. This has resulted
Syria and Vietnam. The Citizenship
in the registration of 20,000 people since 2007.
Law adopted by the Russian Federaƒ Stateless refugees from
Bhutan attend class in a
tion in 2002 is an example of good
refugee camp in Nepal.
practice; on the basis of simplified
Positive commitments
naturalization procedures, the law
enabled former citizens of the Soviet Union who were
International experience during the past two decades
stateless to acquire citizenship if they resided permashows that many instances of statelessness can be prenently on Russian territory on July 1, 2002. They were
vented if existing standards are properly applied, and
also exempted from fees. By the time the procedure was
that statelessness must not be seen as an intractable
discontinued in 2009, more than 600,000 people had
political issue. At the ministerial meeting convened by
received Russian citizenship.
UNHCR in December 2011 to mark the 50th anniversary of the 1961 Convention, many states made pledges
to prevent or reduce statelessness, to recognize the status
Partnerships
of stateless people and to accede to the 1954 and 1961 ConAn increasing number of actors are working on stateventions. Progress will be measured by the implementalessness. In June 2011, the UN Secretary-General Ban
tion of these commitments. n
Ki-moon, issued a Guidance Note on preventing and
U N H CR SU M M A RY | 20 1 2 | T H E STAT E O F T H E WO RL D REF U GEES
17
Chapter 5
Protecting the
Internally Displaced
This chapter reviews progress achieved during the past six years in establishing a broad understanding of what
the protection of internally displaced people (IDPs) means in practice, as well as the continuing need for national
and international engagement. It begins by outlining how internal displacement has become an international
concern, goes on to describe the role of the international community, including in legal and operational
protection, and then considers the conditions needed for displacement to end. It concludes with an assessment of
future prospects, and offers some directions for future progress.
18
THE STAT E OF T HE WOR L D R E FU G E E S | 2 0 1 2 | UNHC R S UM M A RY
Protecting the Internally Displaced | CHAPTER 5
nism designed to ensure a more predictable and bettercoordinated response to the needs of IDPs. It also assumed
co-leadership for emergency shelter and camp coordination and management. Despite questions about whether
UNHCR had the capacity and resources to fulfil the task,
the agency’s work with IDPs is now well accepted across
the organization and the wider international community.
n recent years, IDPs have emerged as the largest
group of people receiving UNHCR’s protection and
assistance. By 2011, UNHCR was engaged with 14.7
million IDPs in 26 countries, in contexts ranging from the
humanitarian emergency, post inter-communal violence
and protracted displacement. According to the Norwegian Refugee Council’s Internal Displacement Monitoring
Centre (IDMC), the largest numbers of conflict-generated
IDPs in 2011 were in Colombia, Iraq, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia and Sudan. Since 2009, the
IDMC has also produced global estimates of the number
of people displaced by natural disasters, a figure which
vastly exceeds the number displaced by conflict.
I
An international concern
The situation of IDPs is fundamentally different from that
of refugees because they remain within their own country,
and the primary responsibility for protecting and assisting
them rests with their government—even if the government lacks capacity to do so, or was responsible for their
displacement in the first place. Previously, the principle of
state sovereignty was enough to silence the international
community in response to internal displacement. Following important developments in recent years, the UN General Assembly and other bodies now recognize that the
international community has a legitimate interest in IDPs
and the protection of their rights. There is also a growing
recognition that refugee protection is complemented by
IDP protection, and that IDP protection is neither a substitute for asylum nor undermines that institution.
In 2006, UNHCR assumed lead responsibility for the
protection of conflict-generated IDPs within the UN humanitarian system’s so-called cluster approach, a mecha-
UNHCR / H. MACLEOD
To be displaced is a devastating experience, often
resulting in the sudden loss of homes, livelihoods and
community ties and requiring durable and sustainable solutions. But each case of internal displacement is
unique: the cause of displacement may be armed conflict,
violence, human rights abuses or other man-made causes such as development projects or actions to preserve
the environment, as well
ƒ A camp in northwestern Yemen
as natural disasters. Disfor civilians displaced by conflict.
placement may affect only
a few families or millions
of people. Given this diversity, the response to internal
displacement must be comprehensive. Instead of being
limited to humanitarian assistance, it should address all
aspects of displacement and last as long as needs and
problems caused by the displacement itself remain unresolved—irrespective of the cause of displacement and
whether IDPs find shelter in camps or outside them, in
rural or in urban areas.
A comprehensive response to IDPs requires solidarity on three levels. One dimension of solidarity is required
from the host community with the displaced themselves;
this is particularly critical for IDPs, in both communities
hosting them or those to which they eventually return.
A second dimension of solidarity is required of governments with their displaced citizens; the primary responsibility of national authorities to assist and protect IDPs
is widely accepted, but situations where national authorities are willing but unable to fully assume their responsibilities call for international solidarity. A third dimension
of solidarity is required of the international community
with IDPs in need of assistance and protection; situations
where the national authorities may be unwilling to act,
U N H CR SU M M A RY | 20 1 2 | T H E STAT E O F T H E WO RL D REF U GEES
19
CHAPTER 5 | Protecting the Internally Displaced
legitimize or oblige the engagement of the international
community to protect and assist the IDPs.
Strengthening protection
In recent years, the international community has worked
to strengthen its response to internal displacement and to
make it more predictable and reliable. The international
community encompasses a wide range of governmental
and NGO actors involved in humanitarian assistance
and development cooperation, as well as civilians and
military personnel involved in peacekeeping or peacebuilding. In times of emergency, humanitarian workers
distribute food, truck in water, erect tents and provide
medical care. But when physical protection is required,
humanitarians quickly reach the limits of their competencies. Physical protection may require the presence
of police and even military forces; in recent times, UN
peacekeepers have increasingly been mandated to protect
civilian populations, and sometimes IDPs—as in Chad,
Côte d’Ivoire and Democratic Republic of the Congo.
When internal displacement and protection needs do not
disappear after the emergency phase, the phasing out of
humanitarian assistance requires stepping up recovery
and development activities to avoid creating a gap in the
protection of the displaced or increasing the chance of
protracted displacement.
Recognizing that IDPs often fall between the cracks
of the humanitarian response, the former UN SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan in 2005 triggered an institutional
reform process to address the unpredictability of humanitarian responses and the inadequate coordination among
humanitarian actors. The reform introduced the cluster
approach, a coordination arrangement to address humanitarian emergencies, including the protection cluster
to identify and assess protection needs of IDPs and to
initiate and coordinate responses. It is led by UNHCR in
situations of armed conflict, and where requested in natural disasters. Since then, IDP protection has become an
accepted task at the international, regional and national
levels. However, experience in protecting IDPs is still
limited, stakeholders may not agree about what protection entails in practice and how priorities should be determined, and agencies have tended to determine priorities
in light of their mandates and work plans rather than on
the basis of assessed needs. In 2011, UNHCR initiated an
extensive review of the Global Protection Cluster, and in
2012 it emerged with a new mission statement and strategy to ensure a comprehensive approach to protection.
Legal protection
Internally displaced people are entitled to enjoy all international human rights and humanitarian law guarantees, in addition to legal entitlements they possess in
their country as citizens and habitual residents. Over
the past decade, significant progress has been made in
strengthening the international legal framework, and
moving legal protection from soft to hard law. The 1998
UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement are
20
THE STAT E OF T HE WOR L D R E FU G E E S | 2 0 1 2 | UNHC R S UM M A RY
widely accepted and have been reaffirmed by regional
bodies, and the African Union’s Convention for the Protection and Assistance of IDPs in Africa (Kampala Convention) of 2009 goes further to require states parties to
incorporate the Convention into their domestic law and
adopt national policies or strategies on internal displacement. However, a major protection gap is the absence
of opportunities for IDPs to have their rights ensured,
implemented or legally enforced at the domestic level.
Yet more than 20 countries have adopted laws or strategies that address internal displacement while others are
in the process of doing so and still others have provisions
in their disaster management legislation which relate to
displacement. The growing number of countries with
national legislation on internal displacement is a positive
and continuing trend.
Domestic courts and human rights bodies at the regional and UN level remain underused in IDP protection, but there are encouraging signs of increased engagement. At the domestic level, the role of Colombia’s
Constitutional Court stands out since it handed down a
landmark decision in 2004 declaring that the disregard
of IDPs’ fundamental rights was an ‘unconstitutional
state of affairs’ and issued a series of orders aimed at improving the situation of IDPs. Regional human rights
courts and bodies—including the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights
and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’
Rights—have started to play a more active role in protecting the human rights of IDPs. International criminal
courts, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for
Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), have also started to hold individuals
accountable for egregious cases of arbitrary displacement.
Operational protection
Legal protection must be complemented by activities on
the ground, during and after humanitarian emergencies,
aimed at obtaining full respect for the rights of the individual IDP. Thus humanitarian organizations often distinguish four categories of protection activities relating
to IDPs. First, activities to address past, present or future
harm that contravenes human rights guarantees, including actions aimed at providing security and preventing
and stopping violence. A second category of protection
activities addresses lack of physical access to goods and
essential services such as food, water and sanitation, shelter, health and education. A third category of activities
addresses the lack of possibilities for IDPs to exercise their
rights. Finally, there is a category of protection activities
that addresses discrimination against certain IDPs.
Enabling solutions
Ending displacement is rarely as simple as returning
to one’s former home or taking the decision to remain
and settle where one was displaced. The humanitarian
community considers that displacement only ends when
former IDPs no longer have displacement-specific needs.
UNHCR / J. BJÖRGVINSSON
Protecting the Internally Displaced | CHAPTER 5
the failure of governments and the interIn 2009, the Inter-Agency Standing Com-  the 2010 earthquake are
national community to invest in rebuilding
mittee adopted a Framework on Durable
taken in by a host family.
areas destroyed by conflict or natural disSolutions for Internally Displaced Persons,
asters. Such situations require robust efforts to restore
which stresses that the process of finding durable soluthe economic, social and cultural rights of IDPs, and to
tions can only be effective if IDPs are able to make an
end their marginalization. Progress of this sort has been
informed and voluntary choice about which solution to
made in recent years in a number of countries, but it will
pursue, and participate in the planning and management
have to remain high on the agenda of UNHCR and other
of durable solutions. The framework sets out four condihumanitarian organizations.
tions necessary for IDPs to achieve a durable solution: (i)
long-term safety, security and freedom of movement; (ii)
an adequate standard of living, including adequate food,
Future prospects
water, housing, health care and basic education; (iii) access to employment and livelihoods; and (iv) access to efSituations of internal displacement remain very volatile
fective mechanisms that restore their housing, land and
and overall numbers of IDPs remain alarmingly high, but
property or provide them with compensation.
clear opportunities exist for enhancing action on behalf of
IDPs and building on positive developments. Continued
Protracted displacement is often linked to politics.
efforts are needed to reinforce the response of national
In at least 40 countries, people have lived in internal
institutions and international actors, including UNHCR,
displacement for more than five, 10 and even 15 years.
to internal displacement. The relief-to-development gap
In many cases they remain socially and economically
needs to be narrowed, and the politics of protracted dismarginalized, with a standard of living below that of
placement needs to be overcome. Making perpetrators of
the non-displaced poor, living in harsh conditions and
arbitrary displacement accountable and providing restorunable to enjoy their human rights, in particular their
ative justice for their victims both deserve more atteneconomic, social and cultural rights. In particular, IDPs
tion. Since most IDPs do not live in camps or collective
endure these conditions in countries that keep them
shelters, governments and the humanitarian community
in limbo as part of a policy to encourage their return;
need to be better prepared to identify, assist and protect
yet people who are able to regain control of their lives
IDPs living outside camps—including in urban areas—and
and become self-sufficient are in a much stronger posito support their host communities. Continued solidartion to achieve a durable solution, including return. In
ity at the community, national and international levels
other cases, protracted displacement is a consequence of
remains critical to addressing all of these challenges. n
Haitians displaced by
U N H CR SU M M A RY | 20 1 2 | T H E STAT E O F T H E WO RL D REF U GEES
21
Chapter 6
Displacement and Urbanization
This chapter looks at the challenges of rethinking UNHCR’s response to refugees in urban areas. The chapter
begins with a description of UNHCR’s evolving policy on urban refugees, goes on to outline the particular
protection challenges in cities and then describes UNHCR’s adapted operations and good practices. It concludes
that broader partnerships and adequate funding will be needed to address these challenges.
A
Refugees and displaced people frequently struggle
to survive in impoverished and crowded city neighbourhoods, where governments provide few basic services
and communities resent their presence. They are often
obliged by state policies to remain in camps. In some
cities, their presence is accelerating urbanization and
transforming the composition of populations.
UNHCR’s evolving policy
In 1997, UNHCR formulated its first policy on urban
refugees. The policy acknowledged that refugees have
a right to freedom of movement under international
law, but it implied that flows of refugees to cities were
undesirable and reflected the priority of placing refugees
in camps. The policy was criticized by advocacy groups,
and UNHCR evaluations that found its implementation
was inconsistent and its effects were often damaging.
From 2003, UNHCR’s response to the exodus of Iraqi
refugees prompted new thinking that led to the policy
on urban refugees.
In 2009, UNHCR adopted a new Policy on Refugee Protection and Solutions in Urban Areas. The
policy is rights-based and refugee-respecting, and
commits to advocating for the expansion of ‘protection space’ in cities. The policy emphasizes that UNHCR’s mandated responsibilities towards refugees are
universal and do not depend on a refugee’s place of
residence. It also stresses UNHCR’s Age, Gender and
Diversity policy.
In December 2009, High Commissioner Guterres
devoted his annual Dialogue on Protection Challenges
to refugees and other people of concern living in urban
areas. A key aim was to foster cooperation with new
partners, especially municipalities. The High Commis22
THE STAT E OF T HE WOR L D R E FU G E E S | 2 0 1 2 | UNHC R S UM M A RY
sioner also made a commitment to evaluate UNHCR’s
programmes for refugees in multiple cities, and to progressively implement the new policy worldwide.
Protection risks
Refugees in urban areas face a wide range of protection
risks: prohibitions on movement and residence; lack
of documentation; threat of arrest and detention; harassment and exploitation; hunger; inadequate shelter;
limited access to formal health and education systems;
vulnerability to sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV)
and to HIV/AIDS; and human smuggling and trafficking.
Documentation
Refugees who lack documentation in urban areas face
many protection problems. They struggle to sign a lease,
cash a cheque, receive remittances or obtain credit; they
also live in fear of state actors and remain vulnerable
to arrest, detention, solicitation of
bribes and intimidation. Providing „ IDPs walking to a UNHCR
them with documents attesting to
supported learning centre
in Soacha, Colombia.
identity and status can help to prevent or resolve such problems; and
where state authorities do not issue identity documentation, UNHCR issues its own identification and status
documents. Yet states often impose tight restrictions on
movement and residence for refugees, threatening the
application of the new policy in some countries.
Shelter
Refugees and displaced people in urban environments
face particular housing and property challenges. Many
refugees and IDPs are forced to settle on peripheral land
which is unsuitable for residential development, exposed
to risks of natural disasters and insecure of tenure. Refugees, IDPs and returnees compete in the low-cost housing market, but they rarely have enough money for a
deposit or adequate local references. They are frequently
exploited by landlords.
Health
Refugees in many cities face difficulties in obtaining
health care, and many refugees suffer post-traumatic
stress disorder. Since 2009, UNHCR has developed a
U N H C R / P. S M I T H
s the world becomes urbanized, refugees and
displaced people increasingly live in cities and
towns. It is difficult to know the precise number
of refugees, returnees and IDPs who live in urban areas.
But these populations are diverse, including single young
men, women, children and older people, as well as some
highly vulnerable people.
Displacement and Urbanization | CHAPTER 6
U N H CR SU M M A RY | 20 1 2 | T H E STAT E O F T H E WO RL D REF U GEES
23
CHAPTER 6 | Displacement and Urbanization
strategy to improve access to health services for urban
refugees and other people of concern. At the same
time, some refugees and IDPs in cities may suffer
unnoticed from malnutrition without receiving food
assistance. In contrast to refugee camps, humanitarian
actors in towns and cities often know little about the
food security and nutritional status of urban refugees
and IDPs.
Livelihoods
Refugees, returnees and IDPs in urban areas have to
work to pay for their food and shelter, so they often
perceive of protection and livelihoods as intertwined.
Most urban refugees survive by working in the informal
economy, competing with local people for poorly-paid
and hazardous manual labour jobs, or by entrepreneurial
vigour. Their ability to work often depends on access
to employment opportunities in the formal or informal
sector. The right to work is integral to protection and
durable solutions. Many humanitarian actors, including
UNHCR, attach priority to promoting livelihoods and
fostering self-reliance. Advocacy with authorities is an
important aspect.
24
THE STAT E OF T HE WOR L D R E F U G E E S | 2 0 1 2 | UNHC R S UM M A RY
Education
Refugees living in cities have variable access to education, and many refugee children of primary school age
do not attend school. In some countries, there is no regulatory framework governing the admission of refugee
children to state schools. UNHCR’s priority in cities is
to channel refugee children into the national education
system, prioritizing their basic right to primary education. Since 2009, UNHCR has enhanced its advocacy
for refugee children to access local educational institutions, and boosted the capacity of schools where possible.
Although it has increased, its budget to support urban
education activities remains limited, in particular for
secondary and tertiary education.
Gender
Women refugees and displaced people in cities consistently report sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV),
as well as harassment and intimidation. In many cities,
women appear to find employment more easily than
men, typically as household servants. The lack of employment opportunities for men and male adolescents
may lead to gender-related violence. In some cases,
Displacement and Urbanization | CHAPTER 6
refugee women engage in survival sex to support their
families. During 2008–2010, men and women refugees
consulted in six cities called for more medical care, counselling and legal support to the victims of SGBV.
Adapting operations
Since 2009, UNHCR has begun to recalibrate its operations towards urban areas. It has begun to develop ways to
identify vulnerable refugees and IDPs in cities, to support
them, and to advocate with governments to recognize
their presence and protect their rights. Communicating
• Involving beneficiaries: UNHCR has actively encour-
aged the participation of refugees and displaced people
living in urban areas in matters which concern them. It
has supported community involvement in cities such as
Damascus, Syria, Sana’a, Yemen; Cartagena, Colombia;
and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
• Using new technologies: In Syria and Jordan, UN-
HCR successfully used innovatory tools, such as electronic vouchers, cash cards and text messages, to register, assist and communicate with refugees dispersed in
urban areas.
In some cities there is a widespread belief that
newcomers, including refugees, take away jobs from locals.
Yet refugees can also have a positive economic impact.
“
”
with refugees in cities is vital, but urban refugees are
often preoccupied with daily survival and very mobile,
and women may be homebound. In addition, refugees
may find it difficult to contact UNHCR, humanitarian
agencies or government offices.
• Health care: In Costa Rica, refugees can turn to the
national health system for all emergency care, and destitute refugees may register for their costs to be covered
by the state.
• Education support: UNHCR encourages the admission
Humanitarian operations in urban areas can be
more costly and time-consuming than in refugee camps,
and UNHCR and its partners face the new challenge
of mobilizing financial resources for
ƒ A refugee woman from
refugees in urban areas. The laws and
Myanmar looks out over
policies of host governments also limit
rooftops in New Delhi.
refugees’ access to work permits and
their ability to meet some of their own needs. Some authorities may prefer to turn a blind eye to the existence
of urban refugees.
Good practices
Recently, UNHCR has made efforts to document successful approaches to meeting the protection and assistance
needs of refugees in urban areas. Some evidence of good
practice has emerged.
• Engaging with municipal authorities: Since 2009,
UNHCR offices in cities that host large populations
of refugees and IDPs have worked with many more
municipal authorities, particularly in Latin America
where major urban centres have signed up to become
‘Cities of Solidarity.’
• Advocacy: In Kenya, a strong coalition has emerged,
UNHCR / T. BAHAR
comprising refugee representatives, churches, human
rights activists and politicians. It has urged Kenya to
work with UNHCR and other UN actors to adopt a
rights-based urban refugee policy.
• Documentation: UNHCR has encouraged national
authorities to issue documentation to urban refugees in
Ghana, Ecuador and elsewhere.
of refugee children to local schools in urban areas; it has
rehabilitated schools and added classrooms in Damascus,
Syria, and Amman, Jordan, to help schools cater for large
numbers of Iraqi refugee children.
Impact
Knowledge remains limited about the impact of refugees
and displaced people in cities, and the financial implications. There are clearly severe strains on central and local
government budgets, but there may also be a tendency
to exaggerate these effects. Tension between established
city dwellers and newcomers is a global phenomenon,
and many attacks on urban refugees and IDPs also go
unreported. In some cities there is a widespread belief that
newcomers, including refugees, take away jobs from locals.
Yet refugees can also have a positive economic impact.
New paradigm
To respond to the protection and assistance needs of
refugees living in urban areas, humanitarian agencies,
development agencies and host governments will need
to work together more closely and more consistently.
UNHCR has stressed that the relationship between displacement and urbanization needs a better evidence base
from which to develop operational guidance. The implementation of UNHCR’s new urban refugee policy is in
the early stages, and it will require new partnerships and
substantial awareness-raising among host governments,
donor governments and other humanitarian actors.
UNHCR and other major humanitarian organizations
are developing and cataloguing good practices. In many
contexts, the availability of funding will be critical. n
U N H CR SU M M A RY | 20 1 2 | T H E STAT E O F T H E WO RL D REF U GEES
25
Chapter 7
Displacement, Climate Change
and Natural Disasters
This chapter examines the international response to the displacement linked to climate change and natural
disasters. It begins by describing the displacement challenges linked to the effects of climate change and natural
disasters, and then describes a potential normative gap in the protection of people displaced across borders owing
to these phenomena. It concludes that protection gaps need to be addressed by the international community, and
that solidarity will be tested by the impacts of climate change.
T
International concern has grown about the effect of
climate change on human mobility. In 2010, the Conference of Parties of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change acknowledged the importance of addressing the movement of people caused by climate change.
The International Law Commission is working on a
text that might serve as the basis for the development of
binding international law on the protection of people in
the event of disasters.
As outlined in the Nansen Principles of 2011, UNHCR
believes the international community needs to ensure
a stronger and better-coordinated response to displacement from sudden-onset disasters and from the effects of
climate change. UNHCR’s core mandate does not encompass displacement caused by natural disasters and climate
change, but UNHCR has a clear interest in such movements of people and an ability to respond to their needs.
Climate change
Environmentally induced migration and displacement
could take on unprecedented dimensions; predictions
about the potential scale of such movements range from
25 million to one billion by 2050. Different categories of
population movement could occur or intensify as a result
of climate change:
26
THE STAT E OF T HE WOR L D R E F U G E E S | 2 0 1 2 | UNHC R S UM M A RY
• People may be displaced by hydro-meteorological disas-
ters, such as flooding, hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones,
or mudslides. These movements are usually temporary
in nature and may cross borders.
• Displacement may be caused by environmental degrada-
tion and slow onset disasters. These could result in people
moving to other regions of their country or to other
countries if no options are available for internal relocation, and most likely on a permanent basis.
• In the case of inundation of small island states by rising
sea levels, the entire population of an island might be
forced to move permanently elsewhere.
• Where some areas become uninhabitable because of
sudden or slow-onset disasters, evacuation and relocation
of people to safe areas may be needed. Such movements
may be temporary or permanent, depending on conditions in the area of origin.
• Finally, displacement of varying duration may occur
when armed conflict and violence are triggered by a
shortage of essential resources (water, food) due to climate
change.
The slow-onset disasters listed above are likely to
produce the largest movement of people, but each of the
categories poses its own challenges in terms of protection and long-term solutions. People displaced within
the borders of their own countries are defined as IDPs,
and addressed by the UN Guiding Principles on Internal
Displacement. Some people displaced across an international border by armed conflict and violence linked
to climate change may fall within UNHCR’s mandate
or qualify for existing complementary forms of protection. But many who are forced to move outside their
countries for reasons linked to climate change or natural
disasters fall into a legal gap, as there is no applicable
protection framework.
UNHCR / S. PHELPS
he scale and complexity of human displacement
will be increased by climate change, a defining issue of our times. More people are already
displaced annually by natural disasters than by conflict,
and the long term effects of climate change are expected
to trigger large-scale population movements within and
across borders. Climate change also accelerates other
global trends that create or affect refugees and IDPs such
as conflict, urbanization and economic inequality. Displacement generated by climate change and natural
disasters will test the capacity of the international humanitarian system.
Displacement, Climate Change and Natural Disasters | CHAPTER 7
At the individual or household level, the effects of
climate change will exacerbate existing vulnerabilities
to create situations where people judge that it is time to
move, either because they cannot survive or because they
would be better off elsewhere. The international system
currently distinguishes between voluntary movement
of people (‘migration’) and forced movement (‘displacement’), but displacement from climate change requires
greater nuance. Further, people forced to leave their communities because of extreme weather events or other
natural hazards have very clear needs for material assistance, and may have protection needs.
the effects of natural phenomena to create disasters. The
impact of natural disasters is a function of both the severity of the natural hazard and the capacity of a population
to deal with it. The notion of vulnerability is thus key to
understanding the impact of natural disasters on communities. Patterns of human settlement affect whether or
not a natural hazard constitutes a disaster. Marginal areas
in urban settings are likely to be most seriously affected
in disasters as the rate of urbanization increases worldwide. Recently, efforts have been made to collect data on
the number of people displaced by natural disasters, but
only for sudden-onset disasters. There are no systematic
data on cross-border displacement caused by disasters.
Natural disasters
Protection risks
The number of sudden-onset disasters has increased
Evaluations of the response to the 2004 Indian Ocean
dramatically in recent decades. According to many extsunami increased awareness about the importance of
perts, this is the result of global warming and a particular
protection in natural disasters. Evaluations highlighted
effect on rainfall patterns resulting in an increase in hymultiple protection risks: increased trafficking of childrometeorological disasters. While 133 natural disasters
dren; sexual and gender-based violence in temporary
were recorded in 1980, the number has increased to over
shelters; reinforced discrimination; the loss of docu350 per year in recent years. Natural hazards do not in
mentation and access to services; and housing, land and
themselves constitute disasters;
property issues. Governments may
2010, Pakistan suffered the worst flooding in a
rather human actions exacerbate ‚ In
be reluctant to consider people
century. In August 2011, heavy monsoon rains again
flooded the country, displacing millions of people.
U N H CR SU M M A RY | 20 1 2 | T H E STAT E O F T H E WO RL D REF U GEES
27
UNHCR PHOTO
CHAPTER 7 | Displacement, Climate Change and Natural Disasters

A boy in the ruins of his home after it was
grant permission to remain, or a stay of
driven from their homes by natural
hit by Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, in 2008.
deportation, to people whose country
disasters as IDPs. The Representative
of origin has been struck by a natural disaster or an exof the UN Secretary-General for the Human Rights of
treme event. However, a broader international framework
IDPs developed the Operational Guidelines for the Proproviding guidance for the protection of those displaced
tection of Persons affected by Natural Disasters, which
across national borders for environmental reasons could
UNHCR helped draft and field-test. The guidelines exhelp states to understand and meet their responsibilities
plain how natural disasters affect human rights, and offer
in this area. At present, there is little political support for
a hierarchy of protection actions to be taken in situations
a new binding international instrument, but UNHCR
of natural disasters.
has indicated that it would be prepared to work with
states and other actors to develop a guiding framework or
UNHCR’s engagement
instrument to apply to situations of external displacement
Where UNHCR has an established presence in a disasteroutside those covered by the 1951 Convention, and in
affected country, the agency has frequently offered its supparticular to displacement resulting from climate change
port to authorities. A review of 58 natural disasters during
and natural disasters.
2005–2010 found that UNHCR had an operational involvement in 13 and provided support in another five. The
UN has designated UNHCR to take the lead on protection
Solidarity test
issues in complex emergencies, but no corresponding lead
at field level was named for protection in natural disasters.
While it is difficult to distinguish displacement caused by
Instead, the UN’s three protection agencies—UNHCR,
climate change and displacement resulting from natural
UNICEF and the Office of the High Commissioner for
disasters, protection gaps clearly exist for people displaced
Human Rights—are expected to consult and determine
across international borders, whether by sudden-onset
which is best-placed to lead in a specific emergency. In
natural disasters or by longer-term effects of climate
practice, this has led to delays and unpredictability. The
changes. Such gaps will need to be addressed presently, in
High Commissioner has expressed willingness to take
preparation for possible future increases in displacement
on a more predictable role, but it proved difficult to find
movements. National laws and policies will need to be
agreement on the way forward.
adapted and strengthened and regional and sub-regional
norms will need to be developed so that governments can
hold one another accountable for their responses to disA normative gap
placement caused by climate change. At the international
level, no single institution has responsibility for matters
People who are displaced across borders owing to natural
related to climate change; so addressing its effects will
disasters and the effect of climate change face a potential
require new forms of multilateral cooperation. Climate
legal protection gap. The 1951 Convention does not cover
change is likely to test global solidarity in ways that are
people fleeing natural disasters, as law courts around the
radically different from anything experienced before. n
world and UNHCR have made clear. States frequently
28
THE STAT E OF T HE WOR L D R E FU G E E S | 2 0 1 2 | UNHC R S UM M A RY
Chapter 8
State Responsibility and
International Solidarity
This chapter considers how international solidarity can help states to meet their responsibilities concerning
refugees and contribute to improving their protection and finding lasting solutions to their problems. It begins by
describing international solidarity and the impact of refugees on host countries, goes on to describe responsibility
sharing practices among states and then describes efforts to strengthen international solidarity. It concludes
by restating evolving challenges and the need for responsible states, international cooperation and meaningful
solidarity to address them.
he international refugee protection system is
founded on national responsibility and states
complying with their legal obligations towards
refugees and others at risk, on the basis of treaties and
customary international law. At the same time, the system depends on international solidarity, the principle
by which ‘global challenges must be managed in a way
that distributes costs and burdens fairly (…)’. Solidarity is
important because responsibility for refugees otherwise
rests with the host state. Countries most affected by refugee flows regularly appeal for more international support.
However, no clear parameters describe how states should
help one another with hosting refugees; and the perceived need for solidarity is often driven by the politics
and visibility of each crisis.
T
In the face of protracted refugee situations and new
emergencies, High Commissioner for Refugees António
Guterres has called for ‘a new deal on burden sharing’.
The solution to growing tensions in the global refugee
regime, he has said, is ‘quite simply, more international
solidarity’. The 1951 Refugee Convention establishes
the scope of state responsibility towards refugees and
its preamble explains that national responsibility and
international solidarity are mutually reinforcing concepts. A similar approach was articulated in regional
instruments for Africa and Latin America, and in the
1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. Since
the Cold War, the dynamics of refugee policy and of
international solidarity have been complicated by a divergence of interests between refugees and countries
in the developed world which enforced new measures
to restrict access by asylum-seekers, and divided discussions in UNHCR’s governing Executive Committee
along North-South lines.
In 2000, UNHCR launched a series of Global Consultations on International Protection to explore ways
to revitalize the international protection regime, which
resulted in a far-reaching Agenda for Protection. In 2002,
the Convention Plus process produced constructive discussions and framework documents, but did not result
in any firm agreements on burden-sharing. In December
2010, participants in the High Commissioner’s Dialogue
on Protection Challenges endorsed a broad-based notion
of responsibility sharing across the full cycle of forced
displacement. An Expert Meeting convened by UNHCR
in 2011 agreed that strengthened international cooperation is needed, but noted that its meaning and scope
required further definition.
Impacts on hosts
Most of the literature on refugees distinguishes between
refugee-hosting and donor countries. Host countries
tend to be lower and middle-income states in the developing world and shelter the largest numbers of refugees.
States which are close to areas in crisis are called upon to
host the majority of the world’s refugees. At the start of
2011, developing countries hosted 80 per cent of the 10.5
million refugees under UNHCR’s mandate. More than
half of the 20 countries with most refugees in relation
to GDP (Gross Domestic Product) were least-developed
countries (LDCs). However, comparing refugee populations from one region of the world to another is not always straightforward. The costs generally fall into three
categories: costs to the state administration; costs to the
economy, environment and infrastructure; and costs for
the host state in terms of its security, social fabric and
relationships with other states.
Investigation into refugee-hosting has tended to focus on negative elements, whereas refugees can and do
make positive contributions to their host countries and
communities, and UNHCR and donors try to ensure that
communities derive advantages from hosting refugees.
Yet consideration of the impact of hosting refugees rarely
extends to developed countries, some of which receive
very large numbers of asylum-seekers and grant asylum
and offer resettlement on a large scale.
U N H CR SU M M A RY | 20 1 2 | T H E STAT E O F T H E WO RL D REF U GEES
29
CHAPTER 8 | State Responsibility and International Solidarity
Sharing responsibility
Responsibility sharing is the expression of solidarity in
practice. International cooperation to share burdens and
responsibilities for refugees has focused on addressing the
impacts of refugee hosting, primarily through financial
and technical support or through refugee resettlement.
Financial and technical support
Financial support for the costs of protecting and assisting
refugees and displaced persons has long been a part of
the framework for international cooperation. In recent
years, several innovations have been introduced in the
funding of humanitarian operations: pooled funding, the
UN’s Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) and
UNHCR’s Global Needs Assessment (GNA). UNHCR’s
budget reached a record level in 2011, receiving over US$2
billion in voluntary contributions, but this covered less
than 60 per cent of needs identified. Further, three-quarters of all contributions received by UNHCR came from
just ten donors, and more than half were provided by just
four: the United States, Japan, the European Commission
and the United Kingdom. In addition, many countries
provide technical assistance to help host countries to
improve their ability to receive and protect refugees, and
to resolve refugee problems. Capacity-building can encompass a wide range of activities, from the development
of emergency response capacities to the establishment of
national asylum systems to refugee resettlement, integration and community development activities.
Other arrangements
Formal agreements to share responsibility for hosting
refugees or asylum-seekers can help to avoid unilateral
burden shifting and reduce the risk of chain refoulement
(forced return). Examples include the 2002 agreement
between Canada and the United States and the EU’s Dublin II Regulation. Finally, there have been periodic discussions about new forms of access to asylum procedures,
‘embassy procedures’ or ‘protected entry procedures’ by
which asylum seekers and refugees would apply directly
from their first country of asylum to enter another potential asylum country.
Strengthening solidarity
Solidarity in the international refugee regime ought to
serve as a means to improve the availability and quality of
protection. Three principles underpin UNHCR’s efforts to
promote international cooperation and solidarity. First, international cooperation is a complement to states’ respon-
UNHCR / B. ZOMA
Resettlement
Resettlement is another important means by which
states can share responsibility with refugee-hosting
states—although no legal obligation exists for states
to participate in resettlement. Considerable potential
remains for resettlement to play a greater role as an
instrument of responsibility sharing. A persistent imbalance remains in the global resettlement effort, with
around two-thirds of all resettled refugees taken in by
the United States and only 10 per cent by countries in
Europe. Moreover, UNHCR cannot always count on a
positive response to its emergency resettlement appeals,
as it discovered in 2011, when it appealed for resettlement
places for refugees—mainly Somalis and Eritreans—who
had fled the conflict in Libya. Within the European Union (EU), a pilot scheme was set up in 2009 for intra-EU
responsibility sharing through the ‘relocation’ of beneficiaries of international protection from one member
state to another, and in 2011 the European Commission
suggested that the EU might consider institutionalizing
a relocation arrangement.
30
THE STAT E OF T HE WOR L D R E FU G E E S | 2 0 1 2 | UNHC R S UM M A RY
UNHCR / G. GORDON
State Responsibility and International Solidarity | CHAPTER 8

A Liberian motorcycle taxi driver gives a
their needs, while working to promote
sibilities and not a substitute; states
lift to an older refugee from Côte d’Ivoire.
refugee self-sufficiency. In the years
cannot devolve their responsibilities to
ahead, UNHCR will face the challenge of holding states
international organizations. Second, the underlying objecto their declarations, and ensuring that they are transtive of cooperative arrangements must be to enhance refulated into concrete action.
gee protection and prospects for durable solutions. Third,
cooperative arrangements must always be guided by the
basic principles of humanity and dignity, and aligned with
Concluding remarks
international refugee and human rights law.
As recognized at the Ministerial Meeting in 2011, patIn December 2011, UNHCR organized a landmark
terns of forced displacement are constantly changing and
Ministerial Meeting aimed at strengthening both nathe international community’s response needs to evolve
tional responsibility and international solidarity with
accordingly, to ensure that protection and assistance are
respect to refugees and stateless people. All UN member
available for all people who are driven from their homes.
states were invited to the meeting: 155 participated and
The primary responsibility rests with states—host coun102 made concrete pledges on a wide range of refugee
tries as well as the countries of origin of refugees and
protection and statelessness issues. A significant number
IDPs—who are required to govern in a way that protects
of pledges related directly to improving their national
the rights of refugees and stateless people on their terriprotection responses and many pledges related to dutories, as well as of their own citizens affected by conflicts
rable solutions for refugees—with some 20 countries,
and crises. It is the responsibility of the wider internaparticularly in Africa, committed to facilitating local
tional community to demonstrate solidarity by helping
integration for long-staying refugees. The most signifistates to shoulder these responsibilities in a consistent
cant breakthrough related to statelessness, with states
and effective manner.
parties to the two statelessness conventions rising to 71
and 42 respectively. The considFinally, the nature and scale of refugee flows, inƒ UN troops deliver water
eration of new factors that give
ternal displacement and statelessness puts national and
to villagers in Côte d’Ivoire.
rise to displacement provoked
international systems under considerable pressure. The
lively discussions at the meeting, with several states
Ministerial Meeting provided a strong international reafpledging to work to obtain a better understanding of
firmation that no government can deal with these probcross-border movements provoked by factors such as
lems in isolation. But solidarity is not only a matter for
climate change and environmental degradation. In the
states. Civil society organizations, communities and indifinal communiqué, UN member states pledged to help
viduals often make the most meaningful contributions to
countries that host large numbers of refugees to meet
improving the state of the world’s refugees. n
U N H CR SU M M A RY | 20 1 2 | T H E STAT E O F T H E WO RL D REF U GEES
31
Acknowledgements
The State of the World’s Refugees: In Search of Solidarity
was produced by an editorial team of UNHCR staff
in close collaboration with external contributors. The
book contains 50 illustrative case studies submitted by
UNHCR contributors.
Editorial team
Editor in chief
Associate editor
Advisors
Statistician
Cartographers
Graphic artists
Editorial assistant
Judith Kumin
Andrew Lawday
Jeff Crisp
Erika Feller
Volker Türk
Tarek Abou Chabake
Yvon Orand
Luc St Pierre
Françoise Jaccoud
Stéphanie Gomez de la Torre
Julie Schneider
Stéphanie de Hemptinne
External contributors
Elizabeth G. Ferris, Susan Forbes Martin, Walter
Kälin, Anna Lindley, Katy Long, Maureen Lynch,
Erin Mooney, Nicholas Morris, Timothy Morris,
Nina Schrepfer and Joanne van Selm.
UNHCR contributors
Allehone Abebe, Mirna Adjami, Kylie Alcoba Wright,
Guido Ambroso, Geraldine Ang, Areti Sianni,
Christoph Bierwirth, Jorunn Brandvoll, Vincent
Cochetel, Peter Deck, Leo Dobbs, Julie Dunphy, Alice
Edwards, Leigh Foster, Bilqees Esmail, Montserrat
Feixas Vihé, Madeline Garlick, Radha Govil, Karen
Gulick, Andrew Harper, Katherine Harris, Susan
Hopper, Arjun Jain, Arafat Jamal, Stéphane Jaquemet,
Anne Kellner, Andreas Kiaby, Anja Klug, Ewen
Macleod, Mark Manly, Ann Maymann, Jozef Merckx,
Juan Carlos Murillo, Shigeko Nambu, Kai Nielsen,
Mildred Ouma, Andrew Painter, Matthias Reuss,
Natalia Prokopchuk, Marc Rapoport, José Riera,
Kimberly Roberson, Roland Schoenbauer, Paul Spiegel,
Elizabeth Tan, Blanche Tax, Gisela Thater, Vicky
Tennant, Brinda Wachs Kees Wouters and Josep Zapater.